Closure and Obligatory Points of Passage in the Complex Nature of Innovation - Literature review Example

Closure and obligatory points of passage in the complex nature of innovation Introduction This essay will delve on the understanding of closure and obligatory points of passage in the process of innovation and the complex nature of innovating. By discussing closure and obligatory points of passage under the theoretical model of Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), investigators can reach the point of resolving problems in the introduction of artifacts and unintended consequences of innovation. Innovation cannot be singlehandedly defined or in a single setting but it can be defined in a complex way. Innovation can be in a form of a product or a new technology, or a new administrative practice. Hage (1999) argued that a country’s economic development very much depends on the introduction of new products and thus governments have to continuously introduce innovation. As said here, innovation is complicated and there are many subjects that can be talked about in relation to organizational innovation. Organisational innovation refers to the adoption of an idea or behavior that is new to the organisation or a country (Hage 1999, p. 599). One of the subjects related to organizational innovation is the actor-network theory of innovation. The obligatory point of passage is an outcome of the actor-network theory which depends on contextual networks of diverse actors, or relationships between people and artifacts. The subject of ‘heterogeneous actors and networks’ leads us to the study of various concepts, one of which is the ‘passage points’ which is important in the human/non-human relationship particularly in building a concept for a product. Actor-network theorists’ notion of interactions between players in the communication process of relationships, between humans and the product in a connection of relationships, should be guided by so-called ‘management authorisation’. Theorists refer to the ‘obligatory point of passage’ (OPP) when discussing managerial norms in product innovation which itself has power and allows transactions among the lower players in a network. (Attar 2010, p. 115) The actor-network theory (ANT) provides a comprehensive model of the innovation process and focuses on science-based innovation processes. Actor networks are heterogeneous and composed of ‘people, research, evidence, technologies, financial resources, institutions, and regulation acting together to produce the innovation’ (Young, Borland, & Coghill 2010, p. 1209). ANT describes a process in which heterogeneous components are interlaced and assembled into a reality, as in the case of technology, and also provides a fundamental ontological contribution. The ANT framework is demonstrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 The key processes in an actor-network theory (ANT) analysis. SOURCE: Young, Borland, & Coghill (2010) The ANT framework is described in the diagram above wherein the ‘links and knots’ form the central core represent the actors (knots), while the links represent the relationships between them and ‘initiate the innovation and then act to organize, and hold in place, all the activities along the 4 loops that reach out into the broader context’ (Young, Borland, & Coghill 2010, p. 1209). In the process of innovation, the loops are the activities designed to link the core with four interdependent sources of power: scientific evidence and the technologies that depend on it, including political connections, allies, and public opinion. The upper loop represents the ‘mobilization of the world’. The new actor network has to relate and mobilize various nonhuman resources, such as intangible resources like scientific evidence and supporting theories; and tangible resources like technologies, money, and venues, to form the process of innovation. There are two kinds of closure as conceived in the stabilization of an artifact, an aspect of SCOT, and these are rhetorical closure and closure by redefinition of the problem (Pinch & Bijker 2012, p. 37). Closure in technology means ‘the stabilization of an artifact’ and the solution of problems. In the original definition, the authors used the word “disappearance’. The concept of closure mechanism is linked to the theory of social constructivism. Social constructivism combines the sociology of science and the sociology of technological process in relation to innovation. Social constructivism states that the sociological aspect of innovation is viewed as the ‘constructions’ of individuals and networks belonging to social groups. It combines the different interests of the social groups and provides a discussion that might reach a conclusion. (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch 1987, p. 111) A technological controversy can be seen as closed if the problem has been solved, although not in the real sense of the word ‘solve’. What is meant by this is that relevant social groups do not anymore see the situation as a problem. Advertising may play a significant role in providing the meaning that the social group wants to refer to the artifact. The advertising can describe the technology and the safety features of such new technology. On the other hand, closure by redefinition of the problem provides us explanation that if a new invention provides solution to a problem, then the issue is perceived closed. The process of innovation has been hounded by several controversies, one of which is the relationship between science and technology. Philosophers tried to connect the relationship by defining the distinction between science and technology, i.e. that science is more on the discovery of truth while technology is ‘the application of truth’ (Pinch & Bijker 2012, p. 19). In finding more facts to their investigation, scholars posited that it was difficult to pinpoint the interdependence of science and technology. Advancement in R&D did not provide conclusion, such as some projects by the US Defense Department which found that most technological developments stemmed from mission-oriented projects and engineering R&D, and not on pure science (Sherwin & Isenson 1966 as cited in Pinch & Bijker, 2012, 20). The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) In the study of the sociology of science and technology, we bring to light a technological artifact, the bicycle. The technological artifact is seen as a succession of change and selection. The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) is in an embryonic stage ‘with no well-established traditions of research,’ which means it lacks empirical data but it is going to that direction of being proved. The artifact has a multidirectional model because of the variation and selection which is its common characteristic. An example that Pinch and Bijker (2012) provided is that of the bicycle invention. The bicycle had multidirectional view, which presented the ‘ordinary,’ the ‘penny-farthing,’ and several other variations. During those times when the bicycle was still being presented as a new invention, the models or variants were viewed by the actors as different from each other and the models were candidates to be seriously accepted by the actors. The advertising campaign provided several clues, particularly on the so-called ‘safety ordinaries’. In deciding the relevance of the problems presented, it is important to find out the meaning the social groups refer to the artifact. When the social groups give their opinion and meaning to the artifact, the problem is identified. The social group is composed of the consumers or users of the artifact; but there are also other social groups, such as the ‘anticyclists’ who may be concerned with the safety or morality of accepting such artifact. The social groups have been identified for the bicycle artifact, and the next concern is on the problems that each group would like to address, such as: technical issues with respect to speed and the safety problem; different and conflicting solutions to particular problems, for example in the safety ordinaries; and moral issues, such as if women ride the bicycle, they may be wearing skirts or trousers on high-wheelers. There are other problems involving technological and moral issues involving the bicycle artifact. Pinch and Bijker (2012) indicated that the invention of the bicycle took approximately nineteen years to be recognized as an accepted invention. At the conclusion of the period of invention, technology was applied with more changes to provide a ‘safety bicycle’ that anyone could ride, and this was ‘a low-wheeled bicycle with rear chain drive, diamond frame, and air tires’ (Pinch & Bijker 2012, p. 39). The closure on the issue of the bicycle artifact was brought when the safety problems were addressed and the different social groups accepted the solutions. It was after a long period that the issue died down and brought to a closure. A demonstration is seen in SCOT that technological artifacts are parts of cultural construction and interpretation, which means that ‘the interpretative flexibility of a technological artifact’ (Pinch & Bijker 2012, p. 40) has to be shown. Artifacts have to be designed according to the needs of the social group, which further means that the cultural tradition of the social groups has to be considered. Rhetorical closure, in the issue and problem of the invention of the bicycle, refers to the stabilization of the artifact and the ‘disappearance’ of problems. The relevant social groups have seen and agreed to the solution of the problem, especially on the various issues pertaining to safety and design. As said earlier, the advertising campaign played a key role to the rhetorical closure. An example of closure by redefinition of the problem is demonstrated in the controversy around the air tire. There were several issues involved in the introduction of the air tire. Many engineers considered it a ‘theoretical and practical monstrosity’ while the general public regarded it as an ‘aesthetically awful accessory’ (Pinch & Bijker 2012, p. 44). The inventors of the air tire argued that the vibration problem of vehicles would be solved because an air tire would just ignore the pebbles or hard objects it would encounter while the vehicle is travelling, and an air is conducive to rough road travel. However, cyclists who opposed the air tire argued that there was no problem and that vibration was a problem to the potential users of the low-wheeled bicycle. But the effectiveness and ideal of the air tire showed when it was mounted on a racing bicycle. During the demonstration in the racing track, everyone was astonished by the speed that air tire gave the bicycle (Croon as cited in Pinch & Bijker, 2012, p. 45). The issue was resolved and closure by redefinition of the problem was introduced on the air tire. Closure was reached when the air tire provided more speed to the bicycles. According to this experiment, bicycle races are significant in the acceptance and development of the bicycle as racing has been considered a specific form of testing, which is corollary to the idea of Constant (1983 as cited in Pinch & Bijker, 2012, p. 46) that testing procedures should be a part in the study of technology. Innovation and the realist theory of knowledge production Just as testing procedures are necessary in the study of technology it has to be tested over and over. Through repetitions, technology can be tested of its regularity and reproducibility. This is one aspect of scientific knowledge, the realist perspective, ‘that a result needs to be repeatable’ (Ravetz, 1971 as cited in Tsang & Kwan, 1999, p. 759). In natural sciences, reproduction of empirical findings is a common occurrence. In organisational science, replication is also necessary to prove the validity of an investigation or innovation. Realism refers to ‘the philosophical thesis that a mind-independent reality, which has its own inherent order, exists’ (Fay, 1996 as cited in Tsang & Kwan, 1999, p. 761). In organisational science the realists posit ‘that organizations are real. They have form, structures, boundaries, purposes and goals, resources, and members whose behaviors result from structured relations among them.’ (Dubin, 1982, as cited in Tsang & Kwan, p. 761) Innovation in the relativist theory of knowledge production The example of the bicycle as an artifact has been reached to the point of closure wherein technology and science were correlated. The SCOT way of explaining technological artifacts by defining the relevant social groups gave us a point for discussion and several steps forward. As viewed in the description and explanation of the social groups, the artifact was defined through defining the norms and values of the social groups. Authors Pinch and Bijker (2012) posited that the sociology of technology has still a long way to go on the context of the sociology of scientific knowledge. But scientific knowledge can be a tool for the advancement of technology. The two examples of technology discussed in this essay, the artifacts bicycle and the air tire, highlights the obligatory point where the two networks were created. The bicycle artifact came to a closure when the problems were solved only after 19 years after it was introduced to the different social groups. The air tire came to a closure when the social groups, especially the group of engineers, found that the speed was highlighted with the air tire was mounted on the racing bicycle. The obligatory point of passage led the process of innovation for an unintended consequence for the use of the bicycle and the air tire even when at first the various social groups, to include the engineers and the designers, did not know it would happen. It was obligatory on the part of the engineers and designers to provide a passage for the invention so that closure could be introduced. The usefulness of the bicycle and the air tire provided the obligatory point of passage. In the study of the sociology of science and the sociology of technology, an integrated approach was introduced in this essay, as a way of testing the validity of the study of authors Pinch and Bijker (2012) and indeed it was proven that science and technology could benefit each other, as what the two wanted it to be. The authors also wanted to give light to the question of what distinguishes science and technology their answer was that it would not be fruitful for the sciences to have a distinction. Science and technology should be viewed using commonsense approach and they should be studied in an integrated way. References Attar, H. 2010, The dance on the feet of chance, Handling uncertainty and managing risk in the fuzzy front-end of innovation, Xlibris Corporation, New York. Bijker, W, Hughes, T, & Pinch, T 1987, The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hage, J 1999, ‘Organizational innovation and organizational change’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 597-622, viewed 17 February 2014, via ProQuest Social Science Journals. Pinch, T & Bijker, W 2012, ‘The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other’, in W Bijker, T Hughes, & T Pinch (eds), The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 11-44. Tsang, E & Kwan, K 1999, ‘Replication and theory development in organizational science: a critical realist perspective, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 759-780, viewed 17 February 2014, via ABI/INFORM Complete, ProQuest database. Young, D, Borland, R, & Coghill, K ‘An actor-network theory analysis of policy innovation for smoke-free places: understanding change in complex systems’, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 1208-1217, viewed 17 February 2014, via ProQuest Social Science Journals, DOI 10.2105/AJPH. Read More